And be sure to focus on the issues at hand: building exceeds criteria for landmark status, owners have created a self-imposed hardship, demolition by neglect should not be rewarded with a demolition permit, Code Enforcement has been trying to work with the owners to bring the building into compliance since 2005. "Substantial competent evidence" is going to be key.

And be sure to focus on the issues at hand: building exceeds criteria for landmark status, owners have created a self-imposed hardship, demolition by neglect should not be rewarded with a demolition permit, Code Enforcement has been trying to work with the owners to bring the building into compliance since 2005. "Substantial competent evidence" is going to be key.

Even further than the above (+1 for all that), CM also have been giving credence to the argument that there remain legitimate offers on the table and competent qualified buyers remain interested. From the LUZ & CC perspective, this needs to not just be a "preservationist vs. owner" argument, it is and needs to remain a commercial argument as well. There are qualified buyers that are willing to engage with the Bostwicks to purchase the building and save/reuse it, and these potential buyers (at least two that I know of) are well aware of the costs and intricacies of doing so.

So the owners don't want the building designated as an historical landmark in 2013, but they touted it as "the most visible Historic Landmark Building" in the heart of Downtown Jacksonville" just 4 years ago??

I'd be happy to post a copy of the sales flyer from 2009, but I'm not quite smart enough to figure out how to upload images or attachments